Standing Committee G

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Barbara Roche: I beg to move,
That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock; 
 (2) 12 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee; 
 (3) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown; 
 (4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (and so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table; 
 (5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded. 
TABLE   Sitting Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings   1st  Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13  —   2nd  Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13  —   3rd  Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 (so far as not previously concluded)  11.25 am   4th  Clauses 14 to 36  —   5th  Clauses 14 to 36  —   6th  Clauses 14 to 36 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2  5 pm   7th  Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53  —   8th  Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53  —   9th  Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Part 5 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 5  11.25 am   10th  Part 6, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 6  5 pm   11th  Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90  —   12th  Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90 (so far as not previously concluded), remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill  5 pm 
 Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Amess. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say how much we are looking forward to debating matters under your's and Mr. Pike's chairmanship. I have had the great pleasure of knowing you for some considerable time. You were extremely helpful when I first became a Member of Parliament. You will have no difficulty ruling over the Committee, given your background, some, though not all, of which I am familiar with. I had not before realised that you were a teacher, which will stand you in good stead, as will your being a father of five children—anyone who can get through that successfully will have no difficulty with the Committee. Your constituency is Southend, West. I know Southend well; there are places where people can sail on a day like today. There are not many Londoners who can say that they remember getting a sun tan on Southend beach, but I certainly remember doing so. We welcome you and your colleague, Mr. Pike, whose background as a Labour party organiser will equally ensure that he has no difficulty. 
 We have to discuss important subjects today and in the sittings ahead. We had a good debate on Second Reading. There is no doubt that the Bill, while technical in many parts, deals with issues that are of great interest to all our constituents. They are about the places in which we live, the environment and local matters that affect us. Many of us, myself included, receive many letters and representations from our constituents about planning issues, and our deliberations will be closely monitored by many outside groups and organisations. I look forward to our debates.

David Amess: I remind hon. Members that, under the Standing Order, the debate on the programme motion may continue for up to 30 minutes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I echo the Minister's kind remarks, Mr. Amess. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and that of your co-Chairman, Mr. Pike. We will do our best to make sure that our proceedings are expedited in good order, although we shall oppose the Bill through every avenue that is open to us. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill with the Minister of State, her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), and other members of the Committee. I hope that we will have a constructive debate, but it will be more constructive if the Government listen to our arguments and accept our amendments.
 The genesis of the Bill lies in three excellent Green Papers issued by the Government. The major one, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', sets the context from which the Bill derives. Paragraph 1.2 of the document states: 
''England is one of the most crowded countries in the world. Only 8% of the land surface is urbanised, but over 90% of our population lives in urban areas. We need good planning to deliver development that is sustainable and which creates better places in which people can live and work.''
 I do not believe that anyone who has anything to do with the planning system would object to that 
 statement—indeed, they would praise it. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the planning system. Conservatives do not believe that there is much wrong with it that could not be put right. The two aspects that are fundamentally wrong are that it is too slow and that planning authorities do not have enough staff with sufficient expertise. 
 It would be entirely possible and better to reform the present system than to conduct the root-and-branch reform proposed in the Bill. No Government can introduce an entirely new system and get it right first time. The Bill proposes fundamental change, and I guarantee that members of the Committee will one day be back in another Committee Room on another Corridor discussing another planning Bill to amend this one. It would be better to try to amend the existing system, but the Government have introduced the Bill, and we must debate it. 
 As I said, the Bill proposes fundamental change. It introduces the regional spatial strategy, which will draw powers from local to regional authorities. It also reserves huge powers for the Secretary of State, which is fundamentally wrong. Surely it must be right to keep planning at the lowest possible level. If one draws planning decisions away from local people, they will not have ownership of the outcomes. They will not be happy with decisions if they feel that they have been imposed on them by the region or, even more so, by the Government. I hope that, even if the Bill becomes law, in practice, the day-to-day practice will be that local authorities, as far as is humanly possible, will make the decisions. We will discuss the regional spatial strategy and the regional planning body under part 1, but we believe that they will draw power away from local people. 
 The Bill is premature. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has not had Royal Assent, yet we are proposing a whole raft of planning policy for regional bodies that are not yet in place or are not likely to be put in place in some of the eight regions. We will end up with a mishmash of regional bodies delivering planning policy. It may be, although we hope not, that some areas will have elected regional assemblies. In other areas, regional chambers, the Government Office or the regional development agency will be responsible for planning. The country will be broken up into a mishmash of planning and other bodies. That is undesirable and will create further opportunities for Europe completely to dominate this country on a regional basis. 
 My colleagues have greater planning expertise than I do. We will debate the Bill with great vigour and rigour and take every opportunity to try to improve it. We do not like the system of programme motions. It is wrong to be constrained to a certain number of sittings, because no one knows which parts of the Bill will be controversial or how long it will take to deal with them. Even more than that, the Government have redefined the programming procedure. Knives mean that we have to leave certain sections of the Bill after a certain number of sittings, whether we like it or not. That seems wrong. We should spend longer on especially controversial parts of the Bill. If a part of the Bill is uncontroversial, we should quickly move on 
 to more controversial parts. I register a protest about the sittings motion. We do not like the procedure; it is undemocratic. If we are sitting on a Committee, we are adult enough to make our own decisions as to how long we should take, and on what matters we want to debate. 
 Finally, I make one housekeeping point. It seems that under our new hours, we shall all have to get up earlier in the morning. I do not mind that—I am perfectly happy to be here at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. However, if we are to be here at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, let us ensure that the other housekeeping functions of the House are kept up. This morning, there were no notices along the Corridor showing which Committee Room we would be sitting in. Yesterday's notices were there, but not today's. I do not criticise any officials, but we must think about such matters. When I left Portcullis House, the Vote Office was not open. I would be grateful if you would pass the matter on to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Amess. I will raise the matter myself if necessary. People will have to get up earlier in the morning so that the housekeeping functions keep up with the earlier hours of Committees. 
 We shall oppose some of the Bill with great rigour. We do not like the timetable motion. Having said that, we shall operate in the Committee as congenially as we can and shall try to produce a better Bill at the end of the 12 sittings.

Sydney Chapman: I echo the words of the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women and of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in saying what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. If I may extend the goodwill, this is the first time I have had the pleasure of serving on a Committee that is led by the two Ministers present here today. It is probably the first time that they have worked together on such an important Bill.
 I must express my reservations about the timetable motion, but before I do, I understand that it is the proper and correct convention that a Member taking part in the Committee, as in the Chamber, should declare any possible interests. I have considered my interests carefully. They are not financial, but as I said on Second Reading, they are a form of reverse financial interests. I am a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have to pay those two prestigious institutions a considerable amount of money in annual subscriptions. For the record, I also have the privilege of being an honorary member of the Landscape Institute—which is tangential to the matters we shall discuss; an honorary fellow and past president of the Faculty of Building; an honorary fellow of the Architecture and Surveyors Institute; and an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. If I have forgotten any, I shall mention them at a later stage. 
 I shall put my quarrel with the timetable motion as succinctly and crisply as I can. The Bill has only 90 clauses, which is fewer than many measures that we examine in Committee, although it does have six schedules. Those 90 clauses and six schedules are, 
 however, complex, and fundamental in proposing radical changes to the town and country planning system, and in their procedures for compulsory purchase orders. Time is needed to examine the clauses and schedules in great detail. I shall mention a few, to demonstrate the radical changes proposed. 
 In part 1, regional spatial strategies are introduced, which is a pretty new concept. Part 2 then deals with local development and the crucial loss of powers that the county councils will suffer. Part 3 provides for the new concept of a development plan and the proper introduction of sustainable development. I repeat one point that I made on Second Reading, which is that I hope that even at this late hour the Government will consider including a definition of sustainable development. Part 4 is about development control and the simplified planning zones. Again, that is a new concept, although it echoes the simplified planning zones and old enterprise zone concept of the early 1980s. 
 I find part 5 intriguing. It is entitled ''Correction of errors'', which refers to the slight errors that are sometimes made in drawing up development plans. However, I wonder whether part 5 should be a part of every measure introduced by the Government. That is a serious point because of the limited timetable that is imposed on all Bills in Committee. This may be an argument for another day, but it is true that much legislation that passes through the House of Commons is not properly examined because of the constraining time factors and so has to be examined in the other place. 
 Part 6 provides for Wales. I hope that my mathematics is as correct as my geography. I am assuming that Monmouth is part of the Principality, and if so, four Committee members come from the Principality. I am sure that they will have much to say about the provisions that relate to Wales. Part 7 moves us on to the important issue of compulsory purchase and the new concept, of which I am broadly in favour, of lost payments. Of course, there are also the ''Miscellaneous and general'' provisions. 
 The Bill also contains six schedules. Schedule 1 is about ''Local development orders: procedures'', which is again a complex issue. Schedule 2 is the ''Timetable for decisions'', and schedule 3 contains ''Amendments of the planning Acts'', which refers to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Schedule 4 contains amendments to other Acts, and I have counted at least 12 that need changes made to them. They include such pieces of legislation as the Gas Act 1965, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Finance Act 1969, greater London legislation, the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Highways Act 1980 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. 
 In conclusion, we will be scrutinising a Bill that is a labyrinth of complexity that would make the Byzantines drool with envy, and we need plenty of time to examine it. You may be able to confirm this at an appropriate time, Mr. Amess, but I understand that the afternoon sittings are open ended. However, I 
 think that we will need more than 30 hours to conduct the scrutiny of the Bill that Parliament expects.

David Wilshire: I look forward very much to serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess, and that of your colleague—I will greet him at the appropriate time. The Minister made one or two observations in which she chose to speak on behalf of us all. If I can pluck up enough courage to speak on behalf of all Members who have taken off their jackets, I will say that I hope that you did not mind, as we should have asked first. I trust that that is order.
 There is a tradition in the House that the usual channels do not normally contribute to debates. Unfortunately for some people, the rule does not apply to the Opposition, so I will choose my words to say what a pleasure it is to work with the usual channels on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) cannot answer back, so I will not take advantage of him. Some Committee members may not know that I learned about planning in Wansdyke as the chairman of its planning committee when it was a separate authority. If my home of 44 years must be represented by a Labour Member, which I regret, I am glad that it is the hon. Gentleman rather than some of the worse ones that I have come across. I hope that he will in due course be a member of my Whips Office rather than somebody else's. It has been a pleasure to meet up with him for the first time since he has been in the House, and I look forward to working with him. 
 The Minister said, rightly, that being a teacher might stand you in good stead, Mr. Amess. I started off as a teacher. After 15 years as a Member of Parliament, I think that I would rather have to keep a classroom under control than this place, so perhaps it is not quite as straightforward as was suggested. As for having five children, I have not managed that many. However, my son, who is now 32, occasionally says that bringing up children is a doddle compared to trying to live a father who is an MP, so even having five children might not be as useful as the Minister seems to think. I have not enjoyed the pleasures of Southend beach, though if the Committee finishes early, I might use the time to take a look at it. 
 It might helpful if I declare a non-interest—my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) declared a reverse interest. Mine is that for five years when I was a member of a council, I was the chairman of the planning committee. That might be useful to the Committee, though hon. Members might get tired of some of the anecdotes—they are 20 years old. 
 The Government's Green Papers start with the premise that planning is wonderful, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold seemed to suggest that that is self-evidently right. However, when I was the chairman of the planning committee, I approached all such matters by saying that it was the democratic right of the individual to do with his property what he chose, unless there was a good reason to prevent it. I therefore do not start from the premise that it is good to have planning and to decide what people should be 
 allowed to do. We are in the business of deciding what we should take away on behalf of society. As the Committee proceeds, I shall at every opportunity challenge anything that takes something away from the individual's rights over their property, so that it is justified and a good argument is given. That is one of the reasons why I think that we do not necessarily have enough time. 
 Another of my concerns is that I hope that there will be a lot of consideration given to the countryside. Both of the Ministers are from urban areas, although that is not a criticism—they cannot help that. Although fewer people live in the countryside, it constitutes a greater part of the country. It is tempting to concentrate on overcrowded, urban development and such difficult problems and to forget that the same legislation applies to a huge portion of the country where the arguments are entirely different. 
 Also relevant to my involvement in the Committee is that I shall enthusiastically support anything that the Government decide to do to stop the monstrosity of planning inquiries that go on and on. When it is finished, part of terminal 5 at Heathrow will be in my constituency. I would welcome anything that can prevent the gross waste of money and the uncertainty. There came a point when all that people in my constituency wanted was a decision. The majority of my constituents want terminal 5 and are glad of it, but everybody got to the point at which they would rather have been told no than to go on for year after year of blight, uncertainty and difficulties. The Government of the day, be they Labour or Conservative, must address that absurdity whereby a few people—the head-in-the-sand, knee-jerk, ''We're against everything'' brigade—are allowed to put at risk the prosperity of a community, or threaten through delay a business that employs thousands of people. 
 In a dry summer, some 20 per cent. of my constituency—the reservoirs around Heathrow—is underwater. Unfortunately, at the moment, somewhat more than 20 per cent. is underwater because of the Thames. The issue of flooding should occupy our time, and loom large in the questions of what sustainable development is and how one can control what happens elsewhere. 
 The programme motion is wrong, and I encourage the Committee to reject it. We must give a Bill of this sort the most thorough examination. It is tempting for a Government with a large majority to say, ''This is all nonsense. There is no need to talk about it. We've thought about it, we have a majority, so why are they just going through this?'' It is the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition to examine thoroughly every last syllable, every last word, and certainly every last clause. The House should not pass legislation unless it is justified. I long for the day, although I doubt that it will ever come, when I can be a candidate at a general election and promise in my manifesto that I will not legislate during the next Session of Parliament. That would be wonderful, but it is not going to happen. A Government, especially one with a large majority, must be made to justify everything that they want to do. 
 Guillotining Committees is not done for the benefit of good legislation, but for the convenience of the 
 Government and the parliamentary timetable. Someone sits down somewhere and says, ''We need to have this through by Easter, this through by Whitsun and that through before the summer so that we can have a nice, quiet, orderly life. It would be awkward if the legislation that we propose is so bad and so controversial that it is held up, and we find towards the end of the session that we have not dealt with any of it.'' That is the logic of the guillotine and of saying that our Committee should have only 12 sittings. It has nothing to do with the Bill or good planning or improving development in this country, but everything to do with the convenience of the Labour Government and their Back Benchers who want to go to the cinema or the theatre of an evening. That is why my colleagues and I oppose to the programme motion. 
 It is fundamentally wrong to say, ''We have 12 sittings, and this is how we are going to use them.'' The Programming Sub-Committee sat yesterday, which you will know as you were chairing it, Mr. Amess. For your sins, there was a vote at the end of the sitting, which has not happened before. I shall come to the reason. I thank the hon. Gentleman who pointed me towards the usual channels, which made it possible for me to talk to the parliamentary counsel who had written the guillotine motion. I discovered that it is not what the Government wanted. They wanted a guillotine at the end of every sitting so that they could control us completely and tell us, ''We will talk about this until 11.35 am and about that until 5 pm, and that will be that.'' They wanted to pay no mind to how important the subject might be. 
 At least some common sense appears to have prevailed. At the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked the obvious questions why the knives were where they were, and why those chunks had been chosen. He received no answer. This morning, the Minister of State came to the Committee and formally proposed the motion. She provided no explanation why the Government believe that it is sensible to guillotine the sittings in such a way. What has led them to the conclusion that we can consider part 1 in three sittings? It may be possible, or even sensible, but it is not god enough simply to say blithely, ''We have such a big majority that we will vote for it anyway. It does not matter, and we don't have to bother to tell you.'' We have had no explanation as to why the motion is in that form. I oppose it in principle and in detail, and because the Government could not be bothered to tell us what they want us to support. If they were prepared to tell us, I might be prepared to reconsider my opposition. I am happy to see the motion committed to paper, and will give the Minister a couple of minutes to try to do at the end of the sitting what she should have done at the beginning.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I have studied the Bill in considerable detail. It contains 22 order-making powers for the Secretary of State. To my knowledge, we have not yet seen the draft of any of those powers. I ask the Minister, in a non-partisan spirit, if we can see drafts of those powers as soon as possible for the good housekeeping of the
 Committee and so that we can consider the Bill properly in context and, if necessary, table appropriate amendments in good time, so that they are not starred when we come to the appropriate section of the Bill.

David Amess: That is not a point of order for me, but it is on the record and I am sure that the Minister heard it.
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Resolved, 
 That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock; 
 (2) 12 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee; 
 (3) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown; 
 (4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (and so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table; 
 (5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded. 
TABLE   Sitting Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings   1st  Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13  —   2nd  Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13  —   3rd  Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 (so far as not previously concluded)  11.25 am   4th  Clauses 14 to 36  —   5th  Clauses 14 to 36  —   6th  Clauses 14 to 36 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2  5 pm   7th  Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53  —   8th  Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53  —   9th  Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Part 5 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 5  11.25 am   10th  Part 6, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 6  5 pm   11th  Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90  —   12th  Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90 (so far as not previously concluded), remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill  5 pm

David Amess: I shall make a few preliminary announcements before we start to examine the Bill. I am not sure whether we shall always play to a packed audience, but we could investigate the possibility of obtaining a slightly larger Room.
 The point made by Mr. Clifton-Brown about the early start is not a matter for me, but no doubt it has been heard by the appropriate channels. 
 Sir Sydney Chapman asked about afternoon sittings and it is correct that they are open-ended, so, in theory, we could sit until 1 am the next day. 
 I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in this Room. 
 I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting. 
 Mr. Speaker has asked that members of all Committee be reminded to switch off their mobile phones. 
 Some hon. Members have asked about taking off their jackets. I am surprised that anyone would wish to do so in this inclement weather, but hon. Members may feel free to remove any article of clothing within reason.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. You referred to afternoon sittings. I understand that one of the reasons for the change of hours in the House was to make it easier for hon. Members to get away from this place. On Thursdays the House rises early and will rise at 6 o'clock today. Have the Government indicated whether we shall sit beyond that time? My assumption at the moment is that we shall not. The Opposition would be happy to do so, but some colleagues must catch trains, aeroplanes and so on and if you have any indication that we may sit later, perhaps you would share the information with the Opposition so that we can make the necessary arrangements to be here late.

David Amess: That is not a point of order for me, but it has been heard and I am sure that there would be discussion through the usual channels.Clause 1 Regional Spatial Strategy

Clause 1 - Regional Spatial Strategy

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No.71, in
clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert— 
 ' ''(1) All plans must be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment.''.'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 2—Strategic Environmental Assessment— 
'.—All plans must be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before getting to the meat of the amendment, I should make a declaration of interest. As stated in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and I have property interests. Sadly, I do not think that they will be enhanced by the Bill, but one never knows whether they might be in future.
 I pay tribute to the Council for the Protection of Rural England which suggested the amendment. It is a key amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, the Bill places great importance on the new concept of the regional spatial strategy. The concept of a spatial strategy is not new—it means all the development that is going on around us—but it is certainly new on a regional basis. We will examine later the procedures for drawing up those spatial strategies, which bodies will do so and which body is to be nominated, but under clause 1 we consider what they will contain. 
 Surprisingly enough, considering the importance of the matter and the huge detail that the Bill goes into, the detail of what is to be in the regional spatial strategies is pretty thin. It is a missed opportunity. Clearly in this increasingly litigious age, it is likely that they will at some stage end up in our domestic courts or the European courts. The judges will have to make a judgment about what is supposed to be in them. The courts are reluctant to over-rule any decision that is set out clearly in a Bill of a domestic Parliament. That is particularly true of the European court. Therefore it is desirable—

David Amess: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should direct his remarks specifically to the strategic environmental assessment. If he continues to discuss these matters on a broad basis, my co-Chairman and I might not be minded to have a stand part debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was coming precisely to the point, Mr. Amess, which you have pulled me up upon. We have to put the matter in context and explain why the amendment is necessary. We want sustainable development frameworks and strategic environmental assessments to be included but the Bill does not go into sufficient detail. The regional spatial strategies will need to include sustainability and economic matters.
 European directives require that the environment be considered in drawing up those plans, particularly on larger developments. I agree on the whole with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that a Government should not interfere with an individual's right to do what he wishes with his property. The problem is that one person's development can be another person's deficit, so a 
 planning system and a regional spatial strategy are needed. 
 In respect of the regional spatial strategy, there is huge concentration in the powers not only of the region, but of the Secretary of State. Under clause 9(3) he can draw up the spatial strategy himself and revoke it at any time under clause 9(5). We need a system whereby we can be certain about what that spatial strategy should contain. The Opposition believe that it should contain a number of things, one of which is the strategic environmental assessment. After all, if one has not made an environmental assessment of the area, how can one come up with a sensible spatial strategy? It simply is not possible. One has to consider the environment. One has to consider sustainability and economic matters. Those are all important matters that need to be considered. There is no way that a spatial strategy could be drawn up without them. We believe, therefore, that they should be included in the Bill. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 71. 
 I will give specific examples of why an environmental strategy is needed within the regional spatial strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned the example of terminal 5. I know that we will discuss major infrastructure projects later in the debate, but a large-scale development such as that will affect a huge number of people's lives, and for that reason alone the environment must be considered. 
 People's lives will be affected by many aspects of such a huge development: noise, fumes, traffic and transport. Many issues affect planning decisions, and that is why we believe that there should be an environmental assessment. The Government will have some explaining to do if they resist the amendment. The Secretary of State has huge powers to direct what is in the spatial strategy. If, despite those powers, he still resists the amendment, there is something wrong with the system. 
 The development of a port has a huge environmental impact. One of the first Committees on which I served in this place considered the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in 1992. That was a highly controversial development. In those days there were no environmental assessments, and that project had a huge effect on the environment. I have been to that area since then. Had I known then what I know now about how the environment would be affected and how the finished product would end up, I would have voted for the Bill with alacrity. The whole area has been improved: development has taken place, the environment has been considered and, in many ways, enhanced by good planning. That is precisely our aim in the Committee, and it is the objective at the heart of the Bill—the regional spatial strategy. 
 We can all discuss the mechanisms to implement planning, but it is the content of the plans and strategies that is important. That is why we must consider the environment. 
 I urge the Minister to consider whether it would be possible to include such an amendment. However, even if the amendment is rejected here, part of our function is to flag up such issues for another place, so 
 that we may return to the discussion, and eventually improve the Bill by including in it this amendment or something similar.

Matthew Green: May I too welcome you, Mr. Amess, to the chairmanship of the Committee?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

David Amess: Order.

Matthew Green: I apologise in advance, Mr. Amess, for the colour of my shirt, and apologise particularly to Government Members, who will have to look at it.
 I will speak about new clause 2, which is virtually identical to amendment No. 71, so they have been grouped together. I will not go on at quite such length about the purposes of the new clause; I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Cotswold said. 
 I understand that we have to comply with the European directive on strategic environmental assessment by July 2004. This would seem to be a convenient point at which to include that in the Bill. I understand that the directive will require all decision making by the Government and public authorities to be subject to strategic environmental assessment, which will entail consideration of the wider context for decisions, strategies, plans and policies. In those circumstances, will the Minister explain how, if the Government will not accept the amendments or something similar, they will be able to comply with the directive? While we are considering the Bill, it would make sense to ensure compliance. I shall not detain the Committee for longer on this matter, and I would welcome the Minister's reply.

Sydney Chapman: I shall detain the Committee briefly, because the two points that I wanted to make have already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 It is essential at the outset to stress the importance of environmental factors in our town and country planning system. The Government have stated quite simply that the measure is intended to speed up the planning process. Many people might think that in speeding up the process we can cut corners and give more emphasis to particular, rather than existing, factors, although I accept that that is not the Government's intention. To include a provision that recognises the need for a strategic environmental assessment would ensure that the measure starts on the right road. 
 My other point has been nicely anticipated by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but the EU directive, which we must enforce by mid-2004, requires that a strategic environmental assessment be included. The hon. Gentleman had a point in saying that the Government will be helped by the inclusion in the Bill of a requirement for a strategic environmental assessment.

David Wilshire: I suppose that the first sitting of a Committee is a good time to get one's prejudices out in the open so that one can save time later on. I realised that it would not be long before an EU directive reared
 its ugly head. I sometimes wonder why we waste our time when, bit by bit, Brussels is sending us directives and all we can do is comply with those, rather than run our own country. I have got that off my chest and I hope that we do not have to go around that course again. I hasten to add that on such occasions I am freelancing, and making no statement, or voicing no policy for the Official Opposition. One of the reasons why I was put in the Whip's Office was in the hope that that would shut me up, but hon. Members will discover as the days unfold that that tactic has been singularly unsuccessful.
 It is crucial that we consider where town and country planning started, so that we do not lose sight of it on the first day. In my view, town and country planning started, and must remain as, land use planning. It is about what we can do with land, what land is suitable for and what we should develop on it. The debate is about what goes on, not about who does things and who lives where. There is a fundamental difference between land use planning and social engineering. 
 I was worried when I discovered that we were, at the first hurdle, overlooking the environmental element of the Bill. In respect of the structure plans, the old district plans and these new-fangled things based on artificial regions, one could see that there was always an increasing tendency, the further one got from the planning application into the generality, for people to try to use town and country planning legislation to achieve their own social objectives. That is not my understanding of the Bill. If the Government accept the amendment or new clause 2, we could make that clear. I have no view either way, because both of those use slightly different wording to achieve the same objectives. 
 I am happy to support the hon. Member for Ludlow, if he wants us to, although if he wants to support us we will welcome that. The principle serves as a reminder that the whole debate and all the proposed legislation are founded on the environment and on land use. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold in that. I am amazed that in drafting the legislation the Government did not flag up the starting point. It makes me suspect that they see the legislation as a vehicle to advance the new Labour project—whatever that might be—rather than to make sensible use of the country's land. We will discover that as time goes by. 
 I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who speaks officially for the Conservatives, says that there should be a strategic environmental assessment. I hope that we can discuss the technical matters before lunch, because getting one's mind round phrases such as regional spatial strategy after a good lunch may be difficult for some of us, although I cannot speak for the whole Committee. Some of the acronyms will become more familiar as time goes on.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend noticed the paradox in the Bill? Whereas the Secretary of State has taken huge powers for himself, there is little to define exactly what a regional spatial strategy is. Is that not a deficit, which is why our amendment should be accepted?

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the alert student of the Notice Paper will have noticed, I have tabled a significant number of amendments, many of which attempt to persuade the Government to define what they mean.
 I have been involved in too many Standing Committees in which bold statements have been made about a regional or spatial strategy for this or that. When one probes, the answer is that the phrase means what the Government want it to mean at the time. If the Government push hard enough, powers are given to the Secretary of State to invent what it means when it suits his purpose. Tucked away further in the legislation—as we will see in this Bill—it is prescribed that so and so must happen and certain things must be produced, with a small rider at the bottom of the page that reads, ''or anything else that the Secretary of State says should be produced.'' I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right.

Sydney Chapman: May I add some weight to my hon. Friend's point? The Minister will disabuse me if I am wrong, but I understand that this is the first measure to mention regional spatial strategy. Surely, a definition is essential.

David Wilshire: I am sure that that is right and I hope to hear the Minister accept that point. However, there is a problem of particular importance before we reach that point. The wording of the amendment is crucial. It does not say that regional plans must be subject to the assessment but ''all plans''. If accepted, the amendment would not limit the clause to the regions but go right down the line.
 The amendment does not refer to regions as such. I appreciate that we tread a difficult path. I do not want to pre-empt a decision on a stand part debate, or get too involved in the rights and wrongs of regions. However, for the purposes of the amendment, an element of regionalism must be seen in the context of the environment. As the debate unfolds, it will become clear that I think the regions are artificial and stupid and that the Government are wrong, which may be ruled out of order, but whatever we think about the regions, they are artificial constructs. 
 There is no such thing as a natural region of the south-east. We could have a long debate about whether other bits of regions could be described as natural, but the south-east region—the one in which my constituency will have the misfortune to lie if the Government do not see sense—is artificial. It exists only for administrative purposes. 
 The one thing that the environment takes no account of is the administrative convenience of the Government of the day. To try to make environmental assessments coterminous with administrative boundaries is nonsense. The amendment makes it clear that the provision should not be directed only at the artificial regions. 
 I have the first opportunity to refer to the flooding that has hit my constituency and from which my constituents are still suffering. The River Thames is no respecter of the boundaries of the south-east. It 
 gathers its water from well beyond the artificial region. Sometimes, environmental assessments have to be targeted at an area bigger than a region and sometimes at an area smaller than a region. It is not always possible to see the environment as a single issue. 
 The amendment would require an assessment of the river system based on river basin boundaries, paying no regard to administrative convenience. The Thames gets its water from where it gets it—and there is an end to it. The Thames provides a good example. I am unsure exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold did on the Committee considering the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but it was undoubtedly an education for him. I have spent more time on the London barrage on the Thames. 
 Many of the Bill's provisions refer to so and so ''or London'', which is treated separately from the rest of the south-east—probably right administratively. However, with respect to the flooding in my constituency, it would be easy to go to Teddington, lift the sluice gates and send it all down here, as appears to have been done for Maidenhead. An environmental plan, whether regional or local, dealing with the use of land in Spelthorne would have to take account of flooding. That means examining where the water is coming from—outside the south-east region at the top of the Thames—and where it is going at the bottom, which is also outside the region because it is in London. The Thames barrage is the point at which a decision must be taken about how much water to allow in without flooding London. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold rightly says that the amendment would apply to all plans and must not be constrained by the concept of the region. The Government must assess the environment issue by issue. I have provided the example of the river basin. We also require a separate environmental assessment on soil type. The sort of agriculture that is possible is greatly constrained by soil type, and the type of agriculture will determine the population necessary to be kept on the land and the requisite services to work it. 
 As I said, a separate environmental assessment of soil type is necessary before drawing up the plans. The same boundaries cannot be used as for a river assessment. We could go through the individual issues one by one and say that all must be the subject of the assessment suggested by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ludlow. We must be clear about founding the entire principle of the Bill on the use of land rather than social engineering. 
 I referred earlier to the fact that the two Ministers present represent urban constituencies: that is how it is. Many of the environmental issues to which I am referring go way beyond the towns into the countryside. All our planning law is rightly both town and country-based.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point about the crucial issue of flooding. We all feel sorry for the people in my and others' constituencies whose homes are at risk of, or have
 been, flooded. Does he agree that a development in one area, particularly near a flood plain, can lead to flooding in another area? If we must have a regional spatial strategy—neither my hon. Friend nor myself want one—the environment can best be assessed at regional level, but every region should also have to consider every other region's environmental strategy.

David Amess: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is becoming very broad and the chances of having a stand part debate are about 60–40?

David Wilshire: I hear what you say, Mr. Amess, but does Saddam Hussein know about the 60–40 chance in this debate? If you make a decision, I should be grateful if you could make it known at some point, because some important broad issues about regionalism are covered in clause 1 and I have been careful to avoid them. If it is for the convenience of the Committee to hold the general debate at this stage, let us do so, but otherwise let us confine ourselves to the amendments.
 As to the environment, and my hon. Friend's point, the amendment is pertinent, because it teases out the difficulty. I do not know whether Lechlade is in my hon. Friend's constituency—[Interruption.] In that case, he makes the point very well. If he wants to drain his constituency by digging channels and getting water to the Thames even faster, the chances are that Staines will be flooded even more in due course. No Government would suggest that Lechlade should be in the south-east region, so at one end of my constituency's flooding problem there would be a region with a barrage, and at the other would be my hon. Friend, starting off a different process. That covers three regions at least—my knowledge of what happens between the south-east and the Cotswolds is a bit vague, so it might even be four. 
 Nevertheless, even though the Minister may feel that the wording of our amendment or the new clause is not what he wants, we should be perfectly happy to discuss different wording and a different way of achieving the desired outcome. It is crucial to start the process with an environmental assessment. I hope that the Minister agrees with that, both for the practical reason that it will improve the Bill and because it will be provide us with a reminder that this is a land use exercise, not a social engineering experiment.

Tony McNulty: I welcome you to the chair, Mr. Amess, and agree with other hon. Members in expecting to have fun over the coming weeks. I am sure that that fun will be informed, controlled and disciplined under both you and Mr. Pike.
 If I were being pedantic, I would echo some of the housekeeping matters that have been mentioned. It is not very helpful when the cards indicating sittings say that our 6 o'clock programming sitting is going to be at 7 o'clock and that our 8.55 morning sittings will be at 9.55. Many of us are confused enough without 
 occasional errors in the usually robust assistance of the House authorities. I have no declaration of interest to make, either unpaid, reversed paid, unpaid or otherwise. Some of that struck me as almost confessional, rather than simply as a declaration of interest. If we are making confessions, I have to declare that for my sins, in a perverse past, I spent 11 years on a planning committee in the London borough of Harrow. I enjoyed every minute of it, much to the perplexity of my colleagues, who thought that planning was for anoraks, and ran a mile whenever there was a vacancy on the committee. 
 I am also, happily, an ex-Whip who can speak. I enjoyed not speaking when I was in the Whips Office—something that I commend to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Before I come to the amendments, it might be useful to consider where we are up to. Nobody on the Labour Benches would disagree with the substance and thrust of what has been said by Opposition Members about the environment. However, we would disagree about processes and structures. 
 We do not start from a vacuum. Much regional spatial strategy will be based on the current regional planning guidance system, the detail of which is set out clearly in PPG11. What is included in that guidance? Among other things, the scale and distribution of provision for new housing, and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. The environment is already at the heart of the RPG system from which the RSS system will grow and develop.

David Wilshire: The Minister rattled through that list so quickly that I am not sure that I caught it all. Will he confirm that it includes drainage and flood considerations?

Tony McNulty: The list specifically talks about waste treatment and disposal, and would, I contend, include drainage and flooding under infrastructure. Flooding is dear to my heart, as I have the great pleasure—or otherwise—of being the Minister responsible for inland and coastal flooding. When I say that I am responsible for flooding, I do not mean that I can stop it, although the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) suggested yesterday that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could, when he said that the Prime Minister had promised that, after 2001, there would no longer be such floods.

David Wilshire: I thought that the Prime Minister walked on water.

Tony McNulty: My right hon. Friend certainly walks on water, but he does not create it.
 I believe that flooding and broader disposal would be included in that sweep of environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals, waste treatment and disposal, but I will happily return to the existing PPG11 to confirm that. 
 As important in the context of the amendment is the fact that, currently and under the new system—I do not want to pre-empt the new PPG11, which I shall 
 come to—regional planning guidance and, indeed, local development documents are required to conform to the existing sustainability appraisal framework. That means that every plan, from the local to the regional, must be fully assessed, as the RPGs and unitary development plans are, in the context of environmental impact, such as climate change and natural resource impact. It is important that we are not starting in a vacuum.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think that the Minister inadvertently confused RPG11 with PPG11, which raises another question. Once the Bill is enacted, will the PPGs disappear? Will we have only regional planning guidance and not have general planning guidance?

Tony McNulty: Planning guidance will remain. The hon. Gentleman will know that we want to revamp the structure of the PPG process and make it far more strategic and user-friendly through the use of plainer English as and where appropriate. As I said, the guidance system will remain. Unless something flutters over to me from my officials to tell me otherwise, I do not think that I confused things. PPG11 is the relevant PPG for regional planning. I am sure that RPG11 means something, but I am not entirely sure what.
 As we move from RPGs to regional spatial strategies, there will need to be a review of the relevant PPG, and that will contain the detail that hon. Members seek about what should be in the RSS. Beyond that, in the spirit in which the debate started, we agree with much of the detail about environmental dimensions and impact and the other considerations on which hon. Members have dwelt. 
 Hon. Members have rightly said that future revisions of RSSs will be subject to a European directive. To provoke anti-European Union prejudices, let me refer to European directive 2001/42/EC—that is the general ''bureaucratese'' of the Union—on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. That is often called the strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, directive, although the directive does not use that term. As the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Chipping Barnet said, member states must bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 21 July 2004. The Government will consider how best to do that, which includes consultation on the proposal. The process of consultation and of finalising how we incorporate the directive into our own domain has begun, but no firm decisions have been taken. 
 The Opposition amendments would have greater validity in terms of structure and process if we were starting in a vacuum and there had been an absence of environmental considerations, but that is clearly not the case. Given that there have been such considerations, it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that process. It will be better to bed that process down properly to achieve the proper consideration of the environmental dimensions that we all want. We should not pre-empt the consultation process in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 71 is, therefore, unnecessary and would create confusion on how the environmental effects of RSS revisions should be assessed until that consultation process has been completed.

David Wilshire: The Minister asserts that the amendment would create confusion. I hear his arguments about some of the details, but how does he envisage that confusion happening? How is a proposal that makes something clearer likely to cause confusion?

Tony McNulty: RPGs will be the core initiative on which RSSs are based. RPGs are dealt with in the context of the existing sustainability appraisal framework and all the environmental and other considerations in PPG11. By confusion, I mean that the amendment asks us to move from that position to one that fully adopts all that is in the SEA directive without knowing the Government's overall approach to the implementation of that directive, pre-empting the response to the consultation of environmental groups and others. By the time that all those processes have unfolded, we will be at a stage at which subsequent RSS revisions can be carried out properly, fully within the framework of the Government's response to the SEA directive.

Matthew Green: It is only 18 months until the point at which we will have to comply with the directive. If consultation is under way, why is this Bill being discussed now? In a matter of months, we might be in a position to incorporate the directive that we know is to be introduced. We will return to the matter some time during the next 18 months, so surely it would be better to put the two stages together.

Tony McNulty: If we were operating in a vacuum, that would be an entirely fair point, but we are not. The RPGs are rooted solidly in the broader context of the sustainability framework in which existing environmental assessments have been made. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to speed governing our thoughts on the Bill. We will not reach a stage during the next 18 months at which every single RPG has turned completely into an RSS. We are about to move on to the second and subsequent stages of RSS revision and development. Would that such speed could prevail.
 By the time that we have reached a complete evolution from RPG to RSS, and before we arrive at any notion of the initial revision of the RSSs, the directive and the means by which the Government will incorporate it into planning law will be long established. That will be the most appropriate time to decide where to go with the SEA process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Minister knows, the directive has been in draft for some years. It has taken much discussion to get to this stage. If the Government are going to resist the amendment, what considerations have they made of how to implement the directive without it?

Tony McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman will indulge me, I shall come to that shortly. I should have liked to say that it is extremely unusual for a directive to be in draft and knocking around for so long without being
 implemented but it was ever thus—I think that that happens with every single directive.
 There is a slight difference between the thrust of amendment No. 71, an addition to an existing clause, and that of new clause 2, because it is a separate new clause. That alters matters ever so slightly, although the words are broadly the same. New clause 2 seems to seek to require all plans dealing with spatial developments and town and country planning to have an SEA carried out. That is inappropriate and adds to the confusion, given that it goes far beyond the scope of the directive. We are being asked not just to implement the directive, but to go well beyond that. I do not know how the Government will deal with the consultation process and the toing and froing before July 2004. It may well be that the Government arrive at that position when they consider the implementation of the directive and perhaps issues beyond that; I simply do not know. 
 It would be wrong to include in this or any other Bill something that, initially at least, for whatever good reason, goes well beyond what the directive asks for. We have time to wait for the consultation on the SEA directive and we should wait for it. The regions themselves can deal with how to implement the directive when they come to the RSS implementation. The Bill already requires there to be a sustainability appraisal of the proposals in plans when preparing revisions to the RSS and when preparing the local development documents, to which I will return. That carries on the core of the environmental assessments that are needed, through the sustainability appraisal framework, for the existing RPGs and other aspects of planning. The sustainability element and the environmental dimension are already there. 
 As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, the Government are currently consulting on the draft guidance on the directive, which, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, has to be in place by 2004. The draft guidance is structured to enable authorities to comply with the directive within the context of the broader sustainability appraisal framework. There may be things in our framework that go well beyond what is in the directive and enhance it. That relates to the point that I was making about new clause 2. Although I fully take on board all the important points that have been made about the environmental dimension by Opposition Members, and although we all share an interest in that dimension, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. The proposed new clause goes wider than the directive and although that may well be the direction that we take, we do not know—we will find out within the next 18 months. 
 It is better that resources should address the need for the SEA, where that is appropriate—it may not necessarily be appropriate in relation to every plan—as and when the consultation period has finished and we are ready to implement the SEA directive. By that stage, much of what we want to do in terms of changing the planning system will be in place. It will be for the regions and regional planning bodies, under 
 guidance, to take forward the SEA directive in the context of the sustainability appraisal and other dimensions. 
 Although I fully accept the serious considerations and points made by Opposition Members, I firmly believe that amendment No. 71 and new clause 2 add little to the environmental and sustainability dimensions, in terms of building on the RPGs and what may or may not come out of the SEA directive. I assure all hon. Members that the Government are deadly serious about planning being rooted in the core of the environmental dimension and sustainability, as is shown by clause 38 and other clauses. In the nicest possible way, I ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments, so that we can proceed.

David Wilshire: I am not sure whether it is the amendments that will cause confusion, or the Government's response to them. Initially the Minister seemed to argue that it was too soon to do what the amendments propose, but then he seemed to argue that the Government were going to do it anyway. Which is it? Saying that it is too soon, but we are going to do it anyway is a marvellous way of causing complete confusion. I hope that the Minister will reflect for a moment or two and clear that up.
 Initially—the hon. Member for Ludlow made this point in his intervention—we began to hear an argument about abandoning the Committee and going away until we have some answers to enable us to decide what is appropriate. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that he does not yet know the Government's overall approach to the directive. Nor does he know what the consultation will say and therefore what the Government's response will be. That does not just affect this amendment. If the Government have not made their mind up on these issues, which have a direct and immediate bearing on the Bill, how in heaven's name can we be sure whether what we are doing is for real and for a decent length of time or whether it is just an interim measure? I think that I heard the Minister say that there are PPGs and regional guidance at the moment. If we do not know what the Government's view is, or what the consultation will be, but we have an existing system that works after a fashion, the existing system should be allowed to go on working after a fashion until we know those things. At that point we can return and deal with the process properly. 
 The first half of the Minister's response was along the lines of, ''It is too soon''. We would agree with that. We would be delighted if the Minister reflected on that over the lunch break, returned this afternoon and told us that we need not come back again because he had withdrawn the Bill. That would deal with that approach, but I suspect that it will not happen. 
 The Minister stated that the Government intend to proceed with the process because other factors point toward it. If what the amendments are designed to achieve will happen anyway, what in heaven's name is the matter with accepting them? They are designed to do what the Government are doing. If they will make things clearer, they should be accepted. Perhaps the 
 Minister would like to have a stab at a better response to the arguments. He has said that it is too soon, or that we are doing it anyway. Until now, all I have heard is additional confusion, not a response to the contributions from the Opposition.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to sum up on the amendment. We have had a good discussion. Perhaps it has gone slightly wider at times than you would have wished, Mr. Amess. Nevertheless, that has been important in putting the amendment in context.
 Although I am not going back to the subject of the European court, it is clear that it will have to implement EU directives. If the Government will not accept our amendments, it is incumbent on them to explain clearly how they will implement the directive. The directive is exactly what it says it is: the strategic environmental assessment 2001/42/EC. In that context, 2001 means that the directive was tabled in 2001, therefore the Government have had at least two years to consider the matter, and they now have only 18 months in which to implement it. 
 Despite our probing of the Government through our amendment, they have not told us what progress they have made in preparing for the implementation of the directive, which will come, as the hon. Member for Ludlow says, in 18 months time. I urge my hon. Friends to support my amendment. If the Government press the matter to a vote, we will support the amendment. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne touched on one or two points. The Government were unclear in their thinking. They were not able to explain what they have done to implement the directive. They said the amendment was unnecessary because they had already made good progress in implementing it, but they were not able to describe that progress. 
 The Minister relied on another argument. He said that the amendment was unnecessary because of the regional planning guidance. The record will show that my intervention was right: he confused RPG 11 with PPG 11. That is an easy mistake to make, because there are too many wretched acronyms around. I do not blame the Minister for that. However, the Committee has a duty to be clear about what is included in the Bill. I would rather amend the Bill, so that in drawing up the RSS—I am sorry to use the acronym but it is easier to say it—everyone is clear as to what they have to take into account, instead of relying on the RPG mechanism, which can be altered at the whim of the Secretary of State. 
 We have used the planning guidance mechanism. The Minister will be aware of a current court case in which the whole guidance system was in doubt. I am sure that that case will go to the House of Lords. At the moment there is some doubt about whether planning and other guidance can alter what is in statute. That is why it is important that we get the wording of the Bill right, and why the amendment should be made. 
 The final argument on which the Minister relied had to do with sustainability, which is dealt with under clause 38. It is true that clause 38 provides that clause 1 ''must have regard to'' sustainability, but as my hon. 
 Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet says, there is no definition of sustainability in the Bill, so we do not know whether a consideration of sustainability will include an environmental assessment. I have heard what the Minister has to say. He has done his utmost to convince the Committee that the amendment is not necessary, but I contend that it is. I shall press the amendment to a Division, and urge hon. Members to vote with me. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in
clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out paragraph (1).

David Amess: With this we may discuss amendment No. 133, in
clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(1A) The RSS will set the spatial framework for all other regional strategies'.

Matthew Green: The key amendment of the group is No. 133. It would ensure that the regional spatial strategy set the spatial framework for the other regional strategies, and particularly the regional economic strategy, because we do not want different strategies to work against each other at a regional level. I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendments or explain that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that strategies do not work against each other. There are so many regional strategies that one should have pre-eminence. Amendment No. 133 would ensure that the regional spatial strategy had pre-eminence, not least because that strategy will get the most public consultation—although I would prefer it if the Bill provided for still more consultation on RSS—and public examination. It is important that RSS should be the overarching strategy.
 Clearly, a sensible RSS that puts in broad terms the arguments for aspects of planning at a regional level will have to work in conjunction with the economic strategy. If the two were to work in different ways, and not closely together, it could lead to great problems. The Minister may be hoping that sensible regional bodies will ensure that the work is done, and that the strategies work closely in conjunction with one another, but I would prefer it if provision for that were made in the Bill, or if an assurance were given that some other form of regulation would ensure the pre-eminence of the RSS. That way, we could insist on joined-up thinking at a regional level, and it would ensure that we met the objectives that the Government are trying to achieve with regional government. They want regional government to be the driving force 
 behind economic growth in the regions. If that is to happen, the economic strategies must tie in with the planning strategies. 
 I shall not tax the Committee for much longer on the issue. I am keen to hear either how pre-eminence will be ensured without being included in the Bill or that the Government are willing to accept the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have sympathy with the theory that the hon. Member for Ludlow is advancing, but I do not think that I can accept his amendments.
 Amendment No. 131 would delete paragraph (1): 
''For each region there is to be a regional spatial strategy (in this Part referred to as the ''RSS'').''
 While I abhor the whole idea of regional planning, to delete the provision for a regional spatial strategy would be a nuclear option, and it would make a nonsense of the Bill.

Matthew Green: I made it clear that amendment No. 131 is not a substantive amendment. Amendment No. 133 is the substantive amendment, and it is the one that I would press to a Division.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: However, the amendment paper shows that the lead amendment, on which we would vote, is amendment No. 131. Therefore, we must address it before we discuss amendment No. 133. When one tables amendments, one must consider whether they make any sense. Amendment No. 131 would be a nuclear option, and it would create difficulties.
 Although I have sympathy with the theory behind amendment No. 133, I think that it would be difficult to implement. The regional planning body will be responsible for drawing up the regional spatial strategy, and we expect it to draw all its strategies together, including its spatial, economic, environmental and sustainable strategies. However, I am unsure whether the Bill should state that the planning strategy should be pre-eminent—that it should stand above everything else. All the strategies need to be considered, and the regional body should be asked to draw them together. 
 I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but if he were to press it to a Division, I do not think that I could support it.

Sydney Chapman: I rise to support what my hon. Friend said, but I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow not to think that I am being pedantic or nitpicking: Opposition Members do not have access to the same level of expertise as have the Government, so I might also have tabled amendments that are flawed. However, it is vital that paragraph (1) remains in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman would have done better to try to change that provision so that it included what he purports to include in amendment No. 133.
 When I read that amendment, I could not understand it because of the way that it is phrased. It states:
''The RSS will set the spatial framework for all other regional strategies.'' 
I thought that that referred to regions other than that particular region, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had phrased it like this: 
''The RSS will set the spatial framework in that region for the other strategies.''
 I make that point gently and, as we are voting on amendment No. 131 rather than on amendment No. 133, I shall not pursue it further.

David Wilshire: What I have heard tempts me to have a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. Member for Ludlow. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said that amendment No. 131 was a nuclear option that would wreck the Bill. The hon. Member for Ludlow said that it would enable sensible regional bodies to do something, but ''sensible'' and ''regional bodies'' are a contradiction in terms. He then suggested that the Bill was a vehicle for successful regional government. If the nuclear option makes the Bill unavailable as a tool to make regional government work, I have a degree of sympathy with him for all the obvious reasons.
 I am in some difficulty because the amendment refers to regional spatial strategy, but the Committee needs to know what on earth that is before it can sensibly make up its mind on the amendment. If I were to pursue that, we would be slap-bang into the clause stand part debate, because it is very difficult to know whether there is a good way to arrange regional spatial strategies—what should come first, second, third and fourth—without that debate, which I do not wish to pre-empt. 
 I applaud the hon. Member for Ludlow on finding a means of wrecking the Bill. If he has any more ideas, he might share them with me so that we could do a deal and save the Government from making fools of themselves.

Tony McNulty: I commend the hon. Member for Spelthorne on his honesty, at least. Notwithstanding the parliamentary scrutiny that we must give the Bill, curtailing our deliberations appeals to me, too, although not to the extent that the hon. Gentleman describes. As the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Cotswold said, amendment No. 131 is the lead amendment, on which are focusing. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, it would wreck part 1 and the whole notion of a future planning system with a regional and local dimension. In that context, I oppose amendment No. 131 and urge the Committee to resist it.
 I shall dwell a little on amendment No. 133, as it raises some fairly important points. I acknowledge the drafting expertise and comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. The closest example of an RSS is what is at present under discussion in a London context—the London plan. The Government have responded to the plan as deposited and will, with other consultees, partake in the public examination of it in due course. By any measure, it goes far beyond a simple land use document, an old county-structure local plan or a unitary development plan. It tries to draw together a range of other issues. 
 The definition given by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was essentially that the process is almost circular—it is never-ending. It would mean that the north-east would be responsible for the other seven regions, the south-east could comment on and have a special strategy for the north-east, and so on. 
 Leaving that aside, there are, rightly, several regional strategies, and the regional spatial strategy is but one. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the consequences of the amendment would be that under the Bill the regional planning body would have control of and responsibility for regional strategies, albeit without the power, expertise, experience or resources to implement them. That cannot be appropriate. The comment that there must be greater co-ordination and integration of all the strategies at the regional level is fair. I take that as the root of amendment No. 133, and I accept that position. 
 The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear on 18 July that he wants far more co-ordination and integration at the regional level, but he does not envisage that being enforced with a sledgehammer by regional planning boards.

Matthew Green: I certainly acknowledge that there are drafting problems with the amendment. The Minister accepts the principle of integrating policies at the regional level. While he is on the subject, would he give a bit more detail about how that will be achieved? I accept that our proposals may not be the best way.

Tony McNulty: We want to ensure a two-way relationship between the regional spatial strategy and other strategies, with the regional strategy informing the others as well as taking account of them. To an extent, there has been a two-way process in the London context. It is necessary to include air quality and energy strategies, investment, operational strategies, the RDA strategy mentioned by the hon. Member for Cotswold, and operational plans for relevant infrastructure and public service providers.
 I shall say something that may at the same time outrage and bore Opposition Members. We believe that the best way to develop the relationship of the regional planning body—and, through it, the regional spatial strategy—with others at regional level is through guidance, not through statute. It is not for central Government to tell each region how its planning body should deal with all the other strategy-making bodies at regional level. We shall set out strategic frameworks and guidance on how they should operate. So long as all the bodies are working in the interests of their regions, nothing that we suggest, whether to do with equality, energy or regional development, will be anything other than consensually based, complementary and robustly interconnected.

David Wilshire: May I take the Minister back to his point about preferring to use guidance rather than statute and ask him—this is not a criticism solely of his Government—is it of benefit to the Bill? If we are still to depend on guidance, does he agree that the guidance in most inquiries tends to be treated as though it were statute—once the Government have
 given guidance, inspectorates follow? Would it not be better to put such matters in the Bill, so that they are subject to parliamentary debate, rather than to issue guidance notes that do not require the Government to be accountable to the House of Commons?

Tony McNulty: I understand the tension to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, it is almost as important to consider the matter the other way round. Why should we impose from the centre a framework or operational guidance for each region to specify how the strategies should be incorporated and interrelated? That is a matter for the regions. I suspect that any guidance issued would concern the local governance of the strategies, and would not be strictly defined planning policy guidance with all that that entails.

David Wilshire: The Minister has underlined my argument by explaining what the guidance will be and the extent to which he may seek to control from the centre. If the Government want to control from the centre, they will issue guidance. If they do not want to do that, why issue it? However, they have said that they intend to issue guidance, so he is admitting that they want to interfere. I do not object to their doing so, but it would be more honest if that were to be shown in the Bill.

Tony McNulty: At the risk of being speculative, I am sure that the guidance will say something to the effect that in each region it will be appropriate if the RDA and the RPB speak to each other so that the RSS and the economic development strategy for an area reflect each other and everyone is working towards the same objectives. It is fine to say that in guidance, but it is not for us to specify in a Bill that Yorkshire Forward needs to tell the Yorkshire regional planning body that it wants certain matters to appear in its document, or vice versa.
 One of life's ironies is that in order to secure proper devolution of powers and responsibilities it is necessary to have a strong strategic framework within which people in the regions or localities can operate. None the less, I have taken on board the points made so well by the hon. Member for Ludlow about interconnectedness and integration. Sadly, they were not relevant to amendment No. 131—the poisoned pill—or to amendment No. 133, which I would urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.

David Wilshire: The Minister raised an issue that we need to consider before we vote on the amendment. He said that he had some idea of what the new guidance might say. That is worthy of a little scrutiny. I think that I have heard, for the first time, that the Government are planning a change from the current arrangements for regional planning guidance. I think that I also heard it admitted that a great deal more work had been done on the issue than we were, perhaps, privy to. Surely, that underlines my point. It is perfectly possible for the Government to make a major change from one sort of guidance to another without us knowing about—unless it happens to slip out by mistake during a debate.

Tony McNulty: The past 18 months are littered with public references to the change from planning policy
 guidance to planning policy statements. It was mentioned in the belly of the Green Paper at the very beginning of the process, and was broadly welcomed by professions above and beyond those graced by the membership of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I have not let anything slip; the shift from PPG to PPSs has been in the public domain for at least 18 months.

David Wilshire: That is something of a relief, but it does not undermine my point. Irrespective of what has been trailed, the Bill will enable the Government to implement provisions without further reference to Parliament. They can put proposals in as many Green Papers as they like and listen to as many august bodies as they like, but they will be free do as they please if the relevant provisions are not included in the Bill.
 One reason that has been given for rejecting the amendment is that the Government will make a fundamental change that will make it unnecessary. I press the Minister to reflect on the fact that it is better to come clean, to have everything out in the open and to say what guidance will be provided. If that information is put in the public arena, the hon. Member for Ludlow may well say, ''That's fine. We don't need my amendment.'' However, we do not have that information. It has been hinted that the Government have done a great deal of work and that they probably have many draft provisions, which they will implement once they have Royal Assent. However, we do not know what will be in them. If they are so far down the track, why does the Minister not issue them to us? He could write to us after this sitting to give us sight of them so that we can know how much work has been done and whether it satisfies our concerns and enables us to withdraw some of our amendments. Otherwise, we will have amendment after amendment, and the Minister will say that they are irrelevant because he has something in the office to deal with the point. However, we do not know what that will be.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Having listened carefully to the debate, I still do not believe that we have got to the kernel of the problem. Even though amendment No. 131 is defectively drafted, the hon. Member for Ludlow has done the Committee a service by trying to tease out from the Minister how the regional plans will interact.
 We should remember that other Departments will issue guidance on regional plans. For example, there will be a regional crime plan, which will presumably include guidance from the Home Office. Any spatial plan will have to take the regional crime policy into account. From what the Minister has said, I am not clear how those other policies will inform regional spatial strategies. What will the mechanism be? The Minister says that issues will be dealt with through guidance, but I am still unclear how the mechanism will work. 
 We should remember that our words, as written down in Hansard, will form part of the legislation and can be used in subsequent court cases, as in the Furniss v. Dawson case. I therefore want a little more 
 clarification from the Minister. I do not want him to tell us, in a vague sort of way, ''Oh well, it's going to be done by guidance.'' I want to hear precisely how other plans will inform the regional spatial strategy, because I do not think that we have been told.

Matthew Green: In the light of our debate, I think that the amendments have achieved their purpose of making the Minister elucidate the problem of how the Government will link different strategies at the regional level. I share his view that it is better to leave decisions to regional bodies, and I wish that the same relatively enlightened approach could be taken to other aspects of regional policy.
 The House may have to keep a watching brief over the way in which the regions work. I am sure that when they are up and running, the best of them will work very well. However, the great danger with having so many regional strategies is that some of the worst regions, and the different Departments, will not talk to each other, and we may need to consider the issue again. For the moment, however, I am happy with what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in
clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'Secretary of State's' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly's, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State's.'

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 135, in
clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 136, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 137, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 138, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 139, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 141, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 146, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 148, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 149, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 7, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 150, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 151, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State's' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly's, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State's'.
 No. 152, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 11, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 153, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 154, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 156, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 157, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 26, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 158, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 33, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 159, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 2, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 160, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 161, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 162, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 163, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 164, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 167, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 168, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 19, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 169, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 170, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 29, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 171, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 30, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 172, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 33, out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 173, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 37, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 174, in 
clause 9, page 6, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 175, in 
clause 9, page 6, line 4, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 177, in 
clause 11, page 6, line 31, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 179, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State.'
 No. 180, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 39, leave out 'The Secretary of State may by regulations require' and insert 'The elected Regional Assembly may require'.
 No. 181, in 
clause 13, page 8, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.
 No. 182, in 
clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

Matthew Green: You are probably relieved that that long list has come to an end, Mr. Amess. I certainly will not repeat it.
 I had hoped that the amendments might be broken up to some extent, as they probe the points at which the Secretary of State retains old powers or introduces new ones. In our discussion on the previous set of 
 amendments, I was pleased to hear the Minister saying that he would like to leave it up to the regions to find the best way of working. This set of amendments, which is not complete, shows just how many times the Secretary of State is mentioned in the first 12 clauses. The regional planning bodies and the elected regional assemblies, which we would like to have this power, are mentioned far fewer times. If I were tempted to repeat the exercise for the whole Bill, we would find that the Secretary of State's powers are mentioned 250 times. 
 The Liberal Democrats are with the Government in wanting regional government, but we want effective regional government with strong powers. I believe that I am the only member of the Committee who has just sat through consideration of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, and I am afraid that the matter is at the forefront of my mind. The regions that the Government propose to set up have such limited powers that there is great danger that the assemblies will be regarded as talking shops and will therefore discredit the idea of regional government for a long time. 
 Later, we will discuss referendums and whether there should be regional government. The public will want to know whether the regional assemblies will have sufficient powers to make it worth their being set up. I am afraid that people will vote against regional assemblies on the ground that the Government are not giving them enough powers. What people want is proper regional devolution. 
 The Minister will no doubt go through the amendments with a fine-toothed comb; I am sure that his officials have already done so. He will tell me that amendment X or amendment Y should not be accepted for one reason or another, and I am sure that he will be right. However, the amendments are designed to tease from him the reason why the Government are retaining and, in many cases, increasing the powers of the Secretary of State when, in at least some cases, they could easily relax those powers and devolve them to an elected regional assembly—when one exists. We will return to the point that such powers should not be introduced until we have elected regional assemblies. At the moment, there is at least some democratic control. 
 I shall not tax the Committee by going through the amendments one by one, although I am tempted to do so. I will leave that to the Minister; I can see that he is preparing to rubbish some of them and to tell me that such provisions could not possibly be implemented. Before he does so, I must admit that I have already spotted a mistake in one of the amendments: an elected regional assembly could not make regulations. 
 The point of the amendments is to get the Minister to justify exactly why the powers have been created for the Secretary of State. I urge him to try to find ways in which additional powers could be released to the elected regional assemblies. By the end of proceedings in Committee, he might have found one or two ways to show that he is a real devolutionist and not a centralist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Your reading of the amendments was a marathon, Mr. Amess.
 All the amendments are intended to achieve a reduction in the Secretary of State's powers, with those powers being given to the regional assemblies. In some cases that might be technically possible, but as the hon. Member for Ludlow has admitted, in other cases and in terms of order making that would not be possible. A balance must be struck between the powers of the Secretary of State and those of the regional body. I would rather the Secretary of State than the regional body had the relevant powers, and I would rather the local planning authority had more powers. The present distribution of the powers of the Secretary of State, the local planning authority and the county council is just about right, which is why I am opposed to the Bill. There is, however, a balance to be struck and an argument to be had. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow has done the Committee a service by proposing the amendments, although I am not sure that he needed to table so many in order to make the point and adduce the argument. He has provoked the discussion, but he is wrong. I would rather the balance rest with the Secretary of State, as proposed in the Bill. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman intends to push the matters to a vote—I am sure that he does not intend that and I apologise for having to leave temporarily during his speech—I would not support him, although I understand the reasons for his proposing the amendments.

Sydney Chapman: I accept the thrust of the 38 amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow and I share his view. If there are not elected regional assemblies—whatever we think of that proposition—the power should not go to the regional body. However, I am not sure that I can go along entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I admit at the outset that I have not had the time—I have not done the relevant research either—to look at each of the 38 amendments. If there is not a regional assembly, it is essential that the powers, such as they are, should remain with the present local planning authorities. One thinks of the county councils in the shires.

Matthew Green: I hope that I am correct in saying that the amendments do not refer to county council powers that would go to the region, but pertain to the Secretary of State's retaining powers or being granted new ones in order to control what the region does. I am trying to devolve at least some of those powers to the region. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman on county councils that that is not a separate issue.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because in proposing the amendments he has clearly done his research, which I have not. Will the Minister confirm whether the powers are presently held by the Secretary of State, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said? That is a rather unfair question, because they are not the Minister's amendments, but if the answer is yes, I will agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow. Apart from—possibly—the Welsh Assembly, the only body that could currently be affected is in London, where the powers would not apply because of
 the planning processes and procedures for the boroughs and the powers of the Mayor. That would not be the case in the regions, so where there are no elected regional assemblies, I want the Minister's assurance that the powers in question are already held by the Secretary of State, not the county councils or local planning authorities.

David Wilshire: I should like to follow some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. We must be clear that the hon. Member for Ludlow has done us an enormous favour. He has done a lot of hard and necessary work, which the rest of us now do not have to do, and I believe that the Minister must respond to all 37 amendments. He does not have to do so at length—I am not being silly—but he should tell us which of the 37 amendments are technically impossible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There are 38.

David Wilshire: There are 38, I hear. Any advance on that?
 Will the Minister tell us which of the 38 amendments are technically defective? If he did so we would be left with a residue that could be implemented—the Government may not want to do so—and should be pursued. That would not necessarily have to be done now, but the hon. Member for Ludlow is on to a principle that has my support. In the previous debate, the Minister said that the Government wanted central control but to devolve effectively down the line. When we know which of the 38 amendments could be implemented, the Minister should tell us why he is against the devolution for which the amendments call. 
 I make no secret of the fact that I am against the stupidity and concept of regional assemblies, but I am a realist, so given that the Government are insisting on them, I am determined to enter the debate about how to make them work well. The hon. Member for Ludlow is right to flag up the possibility of devolving more responsibility to the bodies, because there is nothing worse than a talking shop. I am almost arguing against myself, but when they are set up, the assemblies could be discredited by talk about how toothless and stupid they are. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would give them something more to do. 
 I accept that now is not the time to debate in detail all 38 amendments. In fact, there are 200 amendments in total. However, if the Minister agrees to the principle that something can be gained by an examination of whether we can find more powers in the Bill that can be devolved, we will have the opportunity to conduct extra research and the hon. Member for Ludlow can continue to do us a favour by doing the work for us. We could then have a serious discussion on Report about the principle and what else in the Bill we can devolve to the regions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the amendments are designed to devolve the Secretary of State's powers to the regions, does my hon. Friend agree that the logical conclusion is that more power should be brought down from the region to the local level? If that happened, we would be more encouraged to support the amendments.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right; that was my next point. I was going to say as gently as possible to the hon. Member for Ludlow that I go only so far with him in trying to help the process of devolution, if that is what the Government are determined to pursue. I go along with the idea that powers should be devolved if there is a regional assembly, as before we give artificial regions real power, they have to be democratic. However, I want to examine another matter, to which we can return on Report. If the principle of devolution is accepted—if some of the 38 or 200 amendments are for real—the hon. Gentleman's amendments leave me unhappy because they provide that the powers stay with the Secretary of State when there is no regional assembly to which the powers may be devolved. If the Minister accepts the principle that things can be devolved, I accept the principle that there should be an elected assembly. In the absence of an elected assembly, the powers should go further down again.

Matthew Green: When we discussed the programme motion, the hon. Gentleman said that the planning system works reasonably well and should stay as it is. In fact, many of the powers are the same as the Secretary of State's existing powers. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would go one step further and take the Secretary of State's current powers down to local councils at a planning level for such things as appeals and the setting of guidance? I am referring to the powers currently held by the Secretary of State or those that it is proposed he should hold, not to those currently held by councils. I would not want those powers to move upwards. The amendment is an attempt to move things at least one stage down. Is the hon. Gentleman worried, as I am, that taking appeals and planning guidance down to the local council level might not be appropriate?

David Wilshire: I have no difficulty with that. I was not arguing for a blanket move in that direction, which is why I said that if the Government consider the principle of moving powers appropriate, we could have a debate about that among ourselves and consider properly drafted amendments relating to appropriate powers on Report.
 I readily accept that not all 38 amendments—even if they were all in order—or even all 200, are appropriate. However, if we agree the principle of several, we can have a debate. I do not want an individual debate about each of the 38 amendments, although I am happy to sit through one if anybody else is. I do not want to detain the Committee by considering whether each amendment is appropriate. If the Government indicate that they accept a general principle, we will work sensibly and decide on the amendments that we want and that we believe to be right. 
 There is no distinction between the Secretary of State's existing powers and these new powers. If devolution is for real, we want to question not only the new powers, but existing powers—we must get at both sets. Let us be clear that we are discussing the phrases in the Bill that say that the Secretary of State has the power to direct, prescribe or require. That is 
 real centralised stuff. I am not blaming this Government for that, because successive Governments have used those words to give more power to the centre. However, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has found 200 examples in the Bill of executive powers given to the Secretary of State. The Government want a devolved arrangement in which regional assemblies are substantive, but 200 references to executive powers given to the Secretary of State in a short Bill such as this represents the exact opposite of devolution. 
 I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in general. Although I would be grateful if he gave us a view on all 38 amendments, I do not want that in detail. The work must have been done to determine how many amendments are technically defective and how many we could pursue in the future.

Tony McNulty: That is the third time that the hon. Gentleman has told me how to do what I need to do in Committee. I shall resist that, as I have in the past. It is not for the Government to go through all 38 amendments root and branch to say what we like, what we do not like, what is feasible and what is technical. The Liberal Democrat research department has not formed part of my life during my relatively short time as a politician. If the amendment comes back on Report or in another place, that is a matter for the Liberal Democrats.
 The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet had it right: this legislation essentially concerns the range of powers that the Secretary of State will have—either existing powers or new ones. Most of the new ones are required to move from the RPG system to the RSS system, as much of what we can do now under the RPG system is covered by administrative law. There have recently been calls for those who draw up RPGs to consider certain aspects, and that is entirely appropriate. The debate is about whether the powers proposed in the Bill for the Secretary of State should move to the regional level where there is an elected regional assembly, which is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet raised. The hon. Member for Ludlow will be pleased to hear that I shall not follow the exhortation of the hon. Member for Spelthorne and rubbish that. It is clear that powers to make regulations, powers of direction and the powers proposed for the Secretary of State in part 4 of the Bill are not appropriate to devolve to the regions or indeed, as I was half-suggesting, to local level. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were. The Cotswolds planning guidance and regulations would be completely different from those in Durham or in Shropshire.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is democracy.

Tony McNulty: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is as absurd as having a separate system of criminal law for Gloucestershire and another one for Shropshire. There must be a national framework, national guidance and national strategies within which all these systems operate. Essentially, devolution is the operational devolution of national policy dealt with at local level—it is not about going through each and
 every aspect. Some provisions would be more appropriately dealt with in legislation at a regional level, as they would be the business of elected regional assemblies and it would not be appropriate to include them in this Bill, whereas for others that would be entirely inappropriate.
 One amendment would give an English regional assembly the right to recognise or not recognise the regional planning body, but it is clear from the Bill that an elected regional assembly would be the regional planning body. Therefore, the amendment would give an elected regional assembly the right to recognise itself as a regional planning body with all that that entails. We could discuss that at length, but I am not going to.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister touched on a matter, the import of which he did not quite realise. He implied that there would be one nationalised planning system. I am sure that he would agree that part of the rich cultural heritage of this country is that we have had different planning systems and designs in different parts of the country. I hope that that is what he wishes to maintain, otherwise we would repeat some of the nationalised planning problems that we created in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

Tony McNulty: That is an entirely obtuse point. If a nationalised planning system is a system of national planning law and guidance with a national framework and circulars, to be interpreted and implemented at local level by the appropriate body, that is in essence what we have had since the late 1940s. It is how we progress. In the rich and glorious past that the hon. Gentleman talks about before and after the war, we did not have a separate London borough of Barnett planning system that ended at the Edgware road, becoming the London borough of Harrow planning system, which was distinct from the Hertfordshire system that started at the High road in Bushey. There was a national legislative, regulatory and administrative framework within which all those boroughs operated, and that will prevail in future. The key element underpinning the Bill is the realisation of a national legislative, regulatory and administrative framework that is far greater than anything afforded us in the past 10 years.

Matthew Green: I accept that many of the amendments would not be practical or suitable, but some of them would be. For instance, the power to make decisions about whether there is an examination in public is held by the Secretary of State, not the elected regional assembly. In Scotland and Wales, however, that power is held by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. If we are to provide real devolution for the English regions, why does the Secretary of State retain that power in England?

Tony McNulty: We shall discuss this issue on, I think, 23 January, when the hon. Gentleman asks questions on youth in Westminster Hall. There is a two-tier system in Wales that involves the unitary and the development strategy at national level. The Welsh Assembly owns that national strategy, and it is right and proper that it determines whether there is an examination in public. I confess that I do not know a great deal about the Scottish planning system, but I
 suspect that the position there is not dissimilar. To all intents and purposes, the RSS is owned by the Secretary of State, and an examination, in public or otherwise, will be determined by him in that context.
 As ever, we have to legislate in the broadest context possible. It is right and proper that an RSS should ultimately be determined through a full EIP, which is how that of the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London is being decided at this very moment. It is right and proper that, if a region determines, for whatever reason, capricious or otherwise, that it does not want to go down that route, the Secretary of State has the reserve or default power to say that it must hold an EIP for the RSS, in accordance with proper governance and to ensure proper consultation and participation of the residents of the region. 
 There may be merit in some of the amendments, and I agree that the hon. Gentleman did the Committee a service by tabling them. However, it was perhaps a tad excessive to table 38, or perhaps he was unlucky that all 38 were grouped together. During our proceedings, we shall return to many of the themes raised by the amendments, but as they stand they are flawed. 
 I will not necessarily go through the amendments individually. They pre-empt what may subsequently be in a Bill at regional level, and they also pre-empt the democratic process of the House, because we have not even secured the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill yet, and we do not know whether the good people of each and every region in the country want regional assemblies. 
 The Bill has been drafted in the full awareness of what may or may not prevail in future and the contingencies that may apply accordingly. I shall resist the proposal to shift the Secretary of State's powers down to an elected regional assembly, other than when we have clearly said that the RPB in an area where there is a regional assembly will be that elected regional assembly. That is right and proper, but it is more a matter of detail for a subsequent regions Bill than for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. [Interruption.]

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister let it slip—I hope that I quote him correctly—that the RSS is owned by the Minister of State. Why, then, are we bothering to debate these amendments at all, or, indeed, the Bill?

David Wilshire: The Minister let slip some other interesting things that cannot go uncommented upon. I heard him confess that for the third time he does not intend to respond to what I have to say. I have come to expect that of an arrogant Government: they do not bother to listen to anything that they do not want to hear. I am used to that, and just put it down to where it comes from.
 Much more relevant was the Minister's definition of what is going on in his mind when it comes to devolution. I heard, as the Hansard record will confirm, a wonderful definition of administrative devolution: ''The Government will decide, but we will then delegate the implementation. We will let others get on with how they actually do what we order 
 them to do.'' That is not real devolution. I apologise for saying from a sedentary position, ''What about choice?'', but according to the Minister it is not about democratic devolution. The notion that the people of the Cotswolds might be allowed to choose for themselves is not what he has in mind, and we have that on the record.

Tony McNulty: Their own planning body.

David Wilshire: From a sedentary position, the Minister let it slip that things cannot possibly be different in the Cotswolds and Durham. Why ever not?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I said that in the context of national planning law, national planning guidance and national planning administration and regulation. Is he seriously suggesting that, however great and good the Cotswolds and its representative are, there should be a separate planning law for the Cotswolds that is distinct from that in every other part of the country?

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is a marvellous Member. If the country were to be entrusted to the hands of a local MP it would be him.
 The Minister has tried to wriggle out of the argument by claiming that he made his remarks in a national context. He might have intended us to hear them like that, but he went on to discuss the Edgware road. He talked about planning within artificial, rigid boundaries. He said that there could not possibly be a planning law on one side of the Edgware road and a different one on the other, which is where his urban origins begin to show. He believes that there could not be a planning law on one side of Staines High street, where I come from, and a different one on the other. The countryside is not like the Edgware road, Harrow, the London boroughs or the urban areas that I know. We know where the Cotswolds or the Durham countryside start and finish. The countryside is different, and it is nonsense to suggest that devolution could be rigid and centrally imposed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that Secretaries of State judiciously exercising their functions from the centre to allow local decision making is what has given this country its rich diversity?

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister's concept is to allow people in the Cotswolds, Durham and the Edgware road to decide how they will implement his instructions. That is his response to the amendment. He has not indicated whether the principle pursued by the hon. Member for Ludlow appeals to him. If only he would give us a simple answer to the question whether the principle of democratic choice and devolution appeals to him. If the wording and targets of the amendments are wrong but he sympathises with the principle, on Report the hon. Member for Ludlow and I could readily suggest democratic ways to devolve, instead of making people the lackeys of the central diktat.

Tony McNulty: I was unaware that, as well as his other talents, the hon. Member for Spelthorne is a member of the Staines massive. Some of the amendments are inherently flawed and some of them fly in the face of 200 years of case law and administration of the British system. Some powers will be devolved as and when there is an elected regional assembly. We have made it clear that we anticipate that the elected regional assembly will be the regional planning body and will take on board some of the powers in the Bill. It is very clear where we are coming from, but I am not a Liberal Democrat research department.

David Wilshire: I am grateful that the Minister has clawed back some of his mistakes, which is a little progress. I know that one should not refer to the great turnout in the Public Gallery, but perhaps when the public hear that the ''Member for Staines'' is in Committee they expect to see Ali G. I always disappoint audiences who want to see the ''Member for Staines''. I must be a bitter disappointment not only to you, Mr. Amess, and the Committee, but others who came for a spot of entertainment.
 The Minister has ducked the issue. He has made some very interesting observations in passing, which he will come to rue. He has revealed what the Government are really about. When they claim that they are providing another tier, it is window dressing for their implementing centralised control. The Bill is a five-year plan; it is a Stalinist approach to economics.

Matthew Green: We have partially achieved our objective by teasing out from the Minister some of his thoughts on regional devolution. I am worried that, although he may consider that there is some merit in those ideas, he will leave matters to another Bill. Power will remain with the Secretary of State if there is no regional assembly, so the framework of the amendments could easily have been put in place where appropriate. I accept that many of them are inappropriate, but some could have enhanced the legislation. They would make matters easier for the Government where elected regional assemblies are established, which I hope will be sooner rather than later. They would also give confidence to those who are keen on elected referendums. Such people would be able to see what some of the powers are in advance of referendums.
 In Committee on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, it was argued that we will go into referendums without a Bill setting out the powers of those assemblies. We have been referred to the White Paper. That is not a Bill, and aspects of it can change, so the public have to take on trust that the powers of the regional assembly will match what is in the White Paper. The Government have an opportunity to help that process by finding some point in the Bill where they could accept the principle of the amendments, which would allow power to devolve when the regional assembly is established. 
 The tabling of that sheer number of amendments was done partly for effect. Many are not appropriate and I accept that. I hope that we can return to the matter on Report, and that in the intervening time the 
 Government will find some way of including in the Bill provision for extra devolution. With those thoughts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tony McNulty: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Some hon. Members referred earlier to the number of regulation-making devices and other secondary legislation mentioned in the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that we would provide a running commentary on where they occur in the Bill, and would draft such documents earlier, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said. If hon. Members have not already received details, the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women and I will be issuing a letter today that outlines the starting point of that commentary on secondary legislation and regulations. I thought that the Committee might find it useful to know that now, before we adjourn for lunch.

David Amess: I thank the Minister for that helpful information.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. In order to disseminate that information to colleagues that are not in the Committee, but are closely following its progress, could I ask that the Minister put a copy of that document in the Library?

Tony McNulty: A copy is in the Library, I believe.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister says that that is the case. Could we have it on the Table in Committee so that it is available, in case the post has not done its usual efficient job?

David Amess: It is clear that the Ministers have agreed to that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in
clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'however expressed'.
 This is a small, technical amendment. It is fairly simple and was drafted ingeniously by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I refer the Committee to the Bill, because they will see that the words are completely otiose. Clause 1(2) states: 
''The RSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land within the region.''
 I cannot see what on earth the words ''however expressed'' mean or what they achieve. It is overly fussy drafting to insert those words. We are in the business of producing clear, simple legislation. It was George Bernard Shaw who said, ''Genius is simplicity''. That phrase should be written on every draftsman's door in large letters. If it were, shorter and simpler Bills would be produced, and we would not need to spend so much time in Committee. We would be all better off, especially those who had to interpret Bills. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned accordingly till this day at half-past Two o'clock.